Thread: Press Release, Final Draft?

Folks,

Here's my synthesis for the final draft of the press release.    In order to
get some of the quotes I want, it has to be more-or-less finished by THURSDAY
NIGHT.   So please give your feedback on what version of the text to use or
any changes you want to see.

The format presented below starts with my version of each paragraph, followed
by the previous version (mostly by Josh@bitbuckets) and notes.

PARAGRAPH ONE:
My Version:
NY, NY: October XX, 2004 - The PostgreSQL Global Development group has
released version 8.0 of the PostgreSQL object-relational database management
system, maintaining its position as the most advanced open source database in
the world. This release includes many features previously only available in
the most expensive proprietary database software, and is expected to
dramatically increase the adoption of PostgreSQL by both developers and
software vendors.

Draft Seven:
August 24, 2004 - The PostgreSQL Global Development group today made
available version 8 of the PostgreSQL Object-Relational Database
Management System, the most advanced open source database in the world.
With this new release, professional users have a world-class, scalable,
open source database solution that has many of the features provided by
commercial products.

Notes: Pretty much same content, with my re-writes on language.   Main
addition is "dramatically increase the adoption ... by software vendors".
This was a suggestion early on which I liked, and ties in with one of the
quotes.

PARAGRAPH TWO:
My version:
In addition to reaching a new milestone in scalability, PostgreSQL 8.0
demonstrates the unparalleled development ability of open source.  Red Hat,
Fujitsu, Afilias, SRA of Japan, 2nd Quadrant, Command Prompt, and more than a
dozen other companies as well as over 200 individual developers contributed
to add more major features to 8.0 than have been seen in any previous
version.   These features include:

Draft Seven:
PostgreSQL 8.0 contains many new features that make the database the
strongest contender against the likes of Oracle and DB2.  Many companies,
such as Fujitsu, Afilias, Red Hat, the Command Prompt consultancy, and SRA,
who view PostgreSQL as a strategic part of their overall I.T. plan, have
sponsored development of the new features, which include:

Notes: this is a major change in content; I feel that we are better off
emphasizing our development strength than our comparison to Oracle and DB2.
Partly this is because we did that last release, and we don't need to repeat
it.   Also, the idea ties in better with listing the companies involved in
PostgreSQL.  Oh, and Peter, I need to list "SRA of Japan" because there is an
SRA, Inc. in the US which is a different company.  And I'm currently polling
Hackers for more companies to avoid leaving anyone out.

LIST OF FEATURES:

Windows:
My Version, Same as Draft Seven:
Native Windows Support:  PostgreSQL now works natively with Windows
systems and does not need an emulation layer.  This provides dramatically
improved performance over previous versions, and offers a compelling
alternative to proprietary database software for independent software vendors,
corporate users, and individual Windows developers.

Savepoints:
My Version:
Savepoints:  This SQL-standard feature allows specific parts of a database
transaction to be rolled back without aborting the entire operation. This
benefits business application developers who require complex transactions
with error recovery.

Draft Seven:
Savepoints:  Savepoints allow specific parts of a database transaction to
be aborted without affecting the whole transaction.  This feature is
valuable for application developers who require error recovery within
complex transactions.

Notes: I think my language makes more of a "business case" for the feature.

PITR:
Simon Riggs' version, same as Draft Seven:
Point in Time Recovery: Point in Time Recovery provides a full recovery
model that allows data recovery from bare-metal to the point of failure or
to a specific point in time, based around automatically archived
transaction logs.

Tablespaces:
My Version:
Tablespaces:  crucial to the administrators of multi-gigabyte data warehousing
systems, tablespaces allow the placement of large tables and indexes on their
own individual disks or arrays, improving query performance.

Draft Seven:
Tablespaces:  This feature allows the database administrator to choose
which filesystems are used for schemas, tables, and indexes.  This allows
the administrator to separate different parts of their data onto separate
disks to improve performance.

Notes: again, focussing on the business case so the press will clue in.

Memory & I/O:
My Version:
Improved Memory and I/O:  Disk and memory usage have been improved through
an Adaptive Replacement Cache, the Background Writer, and Lazy Vacuum.   This
will result in more predictable loads and substantially more even performance
during peak usage times.

Draft Seven:
Improved Memory and I/O usage:  With this release of PostgreSQL, disk
input/output subsystems have been improved to use shared buffers more
effectively, yielding more predictable loads and substantially better
performance during peak usage times.

Notes: I prefer to name the three features involved.

NEW ADD-INNS:
My Version:
In addition to the many features bundled with the release, PostgreSQL has been
enhanced by accelerated development of add-ons and optional components over
the last year.    The Slony-I replication tool and the pgPool connection
pooling/brokering utility are both already being used for high-availability
server pools.   Several stored procedure languages have been added or greatly
expanded, including PL/Java, PL/PHP and PL/Perl, and the Npgsql and
PGsqlClient .NET data providers have been enhanced to support our many new
Windows users.

Draft Seven:
There are also several new external components which complement the core
PostgreSQL database engine:
- Slony-I is a a "master-slave" replication system with cascading and
failover capabilities.  It even lets you replicate between two different
versions of PostgreSQL, allowing for simple and painless upgrades.
- PostgreSQL has beefed up several areas of its language interoperability
including the procedural languages PL/Perl, PL/PHP and PL/Java.
- With this version, Postgresql also offers the .Net provider, Npgsql.

Notes:  I really dislike the list format for the add-ons.   It takes up too
much space and detracts from the narrative flow of the press release.
Also, pgSphere, pgst, and PQA are also new add-ons, but I can't see how to fit
them in.

OTHER MATERIAL:

My Version Only:
Of course, there are many more new features.   For a full list, see our
Press Page <link>

Draft Seven Only:
Version 8 is the collective work of hundreds of developers, building on
almost twenty years of development dating back to the University of
California at Berkeley.  The PostgreSQL group has over one thousand
members, working at different companies all over the world.

PostgreSQL is licensed under the BSD license, giving maximum flexibility
for both commercial and noncommercial use.  This puts PostgreSQL users in
full control of how PostgreSQL is deployed in their organizations. The
PostgreSQL database can be downloaded freely at http://www.postgresql.org.

My Version Only:
About PostgreSQL:
With more than 18 years of development by hundreds of the world's
most generous and brilliant minds from the open source community,
PostgreSQL is the world's most advanced open source database. With its
long time support of an enterprise level feature set including
transactions, stored procedures, triggers, and subqueries, PostgreSQL is
being used by many of today's most demanding businesses and government
agencies. PostgreSQL is available under a BSD License for both commercial and
non-commercial use.

To find out more about PostgreSQL or to download it, please visit:
  http://www.postgresql.org/

Notes: I think a synthesis of the two "what is" versions might work best.

--
--Josh

Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 09:30, Josh Berkus wrote:
> PARAGRAPH TWO:
> My version:
> In addition to reaching a new milestone in scalability, PostgreSQL 8.0
> demonstrates the unparalleled development ability of open source.

Uh, what exactly is this "new milestone in scalability"?

> Improved Memory and I/O:  Disk and memory usage have been improved through
> an Adaptive Replacement Cache, the Background Writer, and Lazy Vacuum.   This
> will result in more predictable loads and substantially more even performance
> during peak usage times.

I don't think "more even" sounds good; perhaps "more consistent"
instead?

-Neil

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Neil Conway wrote:

> On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 09:30, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > PARAGRAPH TWO:
> > My version:
> > In addition to reaching a new milestone in scalability, PostgreSQL 8.0
> > demonstrates the unparalleled development ability of open source.
>
> Uh, what exactly is this "new milestone in scalability"?
>
> > Improved Memory and I/O:  Disk and memory usage have been improved through
> > an Adaptive Replacement Cache, the Background Writer, and Lazy Vacuum.   This
> > will result in more predictable loads and substantially more even performance
> > during peak usage times.
>
> I don't think "more even" sounds good; perhaps "more consistent"
> instead?

Perhaps what is meant is "more predictable"?

--
Evan Rempel <erempel@UVic.CA>
Senior Programmer Analyst
University of Victoria

People,

> Uh, what exactly is this "new milestone in scalability"?

Media buzzwordspeak?   Suggestions on putting in something more concrete that
references PostgreSQL being better for bigger databases than ever before?

> > Improved Memory and I/O:  Disk and memory usage have been improved
> > through an Adaptive Replacement Cache, the Background Writer, and Lazy
> > Vacuum.   This will result in more predictable loads and substantially
> > more even performance during peak usage times.
>
> I don't think "more even" sounds good; perhaps "more consistent"
> instead?
>
> Perhaps what is meant is "more predictable"?

Hmmmm ... I think "more consistent".

> Expertly polished version of (the other) Josh's already fine efforts.

All that time I served in fundraising, polishing other people's words with a
soft cloth and some Brasso.

> Nice.  Maybe "building on its position" - maintaining sounds a little
> stationary.

Hmmm ... maybe.   What I meant was "maintaining our lead as the most
advanced ..." but that doesn't quite work either.   Suggestions, anyone?

> maybe "development power" instead of "ability"?

Hmm.  I agree that that phrase needs work, but I'm afraid that "development
power of Open Source" sounds cliche'.    Tangentally, "Open Source" is a
phrase trademarked by Eric Raymond, but I don't usually see it capitalized.
Anyone know the policy on this?

--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

Josh Berkus wrote:
> Here's my synthesis for the final draft of the press release.    In
> order to get some of the quotes I want, it has to be more-or-less
> finished by THURSDAY NIGHT.   So please give your feedback on what
> version of the text to use or any changes you want to see.

Why is this the final draft if the release it still more than one month
away?

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

> Hmm.  I agree that that phrase needs work, but I'm afraid that
> "development
> power of Open Source" sounds cliche'.    Tangentally, "Open Source" is
a
> phrase trademarked by Eric Raymond, but I don't usually see it
> capitalized.
> Anyone know the policy on this?

I think that depends on what meaning you would like to convey.  If you
simply mean the source is open, then no.  If you would like to 'load'
the term with generally subscribed user perceptions about the philosophy
and spirit of open source development (a nebulous thing, IMO) then yes.

In short, use your best judgement :)

Merlin

Josh Berkus wrote:

I like where this is going, but of course I have a couple of comments.

> PARAGRAPH ONE:
> My Version:
> NY, NY: October XX, 2004 - The PostgreSQL Global Development group

Why "NY, NY"?

> has released version 8.0 of the PostgreSQL object-relational database
> management system, maintaining its position as the most advanced open
> source database in the world. This release includes many features
> previously only available in the most expensive proprietary database
> software, and is expected to dramatically increase the adoption of
> PostgreSQL by both developers and software vendors.

There tends to be a lot of "drama" in the press release drafts.  Drama
is about conflict and suspense, which we really don't want.  A term
like "significantly" might be better.

> PARAGRAPH TWO:
> My version:
> In addition to reaching a new milestone in scalability, PostgreSQL

I concur with others that there is no milestone in scalability.

> Windows:
> My Version, Same as Draft Seven:
> Native Windows Support:  PostgreSQL now works natively with Windows
> systems and does not need an emulation layer.  This provides

... *on* Windows *operating* systems ...

> dramatically improved performance over previous versions, and offers
> a compelling alternative to proprietary database software for
> independent software vendors, corporate users, and individual Windows
> developers.

Again, there is no drama here.

> Savepoints:  This SQL-standard feature allows specific parts of a
> database transaction to be rolled back without aborting the entire
> operation. This benefits business application developers who require

... entire transaction.

> Point in Time Recovery: Point in Time Recovery provides a full
> recovery model that allows data recovery from bare-metal to the point
> of failure or to a specific point in time, based around automatically
> archived transaction logs.

Somehow I feel that this wording is confusing; I wouldn't know what PITR
really does.  How does it tie in with existing features and how does it
respond to users' needs.  Obviously, PostgreSQL had some kind of data
recovery before, but that makes it look like now it really has it or
something.

> Tablespaces:  crucial to the administrators of multi-gigabyte data
> warehousing systems, tablespaces allow the placement of large tables
> and indexes on their own individual disks or arrays, improving query
> performance.

Capital C

> Improved Memory and I/O:  Disk and memory usage have been improved
> through an Adaptive Replacement Cache, the Background Writer, and
> Lazy Vacuum.   This will result in more predictable loads and
> substantially more even performance during peak usage times.

It's not "an" Adaptive Replacement Cache, it's "the" Adaptive
Replacement Cache algorithm.  How about this change:  "Disk and memory
usage have been optimized through the use of the Adaptive Replacement
Cache algorithm, the new background writer, and the new lazy vacuum
feature."

> My Version:
> In addition to the many features bundled with the release, PostgreSQL
> has been enhanced by accelerated development of add-ons and optional
> components over the last year.    The Slony-I replication tool and
> the pgPool connection pooling/brokering utility are both already
> being used for high-availability server pools.   Several stored

There is no capital P in pgpool.

> procedure languages have been added or greatly expanded, including
> PL/Java, PL/PHP and PL/Perl, and the Npgsql and PGsqlClient .NET data
> providers have been enhanced to support our many new Windows users.

> Of course, there are many more new features.   For a full list, see
> our Press Page <link>

"press page"

> With more than 18 years of development by hundreds of the world's
> most generous and brilliant minds from the open source community,

I think this really goes too far with the self-glorification.

> PostgreSQL is the world's most advanced open source database. With
> its long time support of an enterprise level feature set including
> transactions, stored procedures, triggers, and subqueries, PostgreSQL
> is being used by many of today's most demanding businesses and
> government agencies. PostgreSQL is available under a BSD License for
> both commercial and non-commercial use.

PostgreSQL is available under a BSD-style license, which imposes no
restrictions on commercial or noncommercial redistribution and use.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

>Neil Conway
> On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 09:30, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > PARAGRAPH TWO:
> > My version:
> > In addition to reaching a new milestone in scalability, PostgreSQL 8.0
> > demonstrates the unparalleled development ability of open source.
>
> Uh, what exactly is this "new milestone in scalability"?

I like that phrase. v8.0 is undoubtedly not just faster but more scalable
than previous versions: better use of memory (ARC), background writer
(smoother performance, reduced locking), reduced parse time through
datastructure optimisation, avoidance of cache spoiling from vacuum, more
accurate identification of indexing opportunities). Delivery of new
functionality can reasonably be referred to as a milestone...

"It goes faster when you use more CPUs" doesnt have the same ring. :-)

> > Improved Memory and I/O:  Disk and memory usage have been
> improved through
> > an Adaptive Replacement Cache, the Background Writer, and Lazy
> Vacuum.   This
> > will result in more predictable loads and substantially more
> even performance
> > during peak usage times.
>
> I don't think "more even" sounds good; perhaps "more consistent"
> instead?
>

Agreed. "more consistent" probably works better in international english.

Best Regards, Simon Riggs

On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 16:53, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >Neil Conway
> > On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 09:30, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > > PARAGRAPH TWO:
> > > My version:
> > > In addition to reaching a new milestone in scalability, PostgreSQL 8.0
> > > demonstrates the unparalleled development ability of open source.
> >
> > Uh, what exactly is this "new milestone in scalability"?
>
> I like that phrase. v8.0 is undoubtedly not just faster but more scalable

Just to be a pain, the only benchmarks I've seen (OSDL) indicates 8.0 is
a touch slower than 7.4.

It is, however, significantly more predictable (consistent) in it's
performance -- which is far more important for most of us.

> Peter Eisentraut
> Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Here's my synthesis for the final draft of the press release.    In
> > order to get some of the quotes I want, it has to be more-or-less
> > finished by THURSDAY NIGHT.   So please give your feedback on what
> > version of the text to use or any changes you want to see.
>
> Why is this the final draft if the release it still more than one month
> away?
>

...all things need to be completed sometime in advance.

Just as we have a code freeze months before release, we must also expect a
PR freeze sometime in advance of the release. Many of the publications that
will carry this story run hardcopy print runs with editorial freezes well in
advance of actual release onto the shelves or out to their subscribers.

Hopefully the press release will also be translated into 10+ languages?

Best Regards, Simon Riggs

> Rod Taylor writes
> On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 16:53, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > >Neil Conway
> > > On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 09:30, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > > > PARAGRAPH TWO:
> > > > My version:
> > > > In addition to reaching a new milestone in scalability,
> PostgreSQL 8.0
> > > > demonstrates the unparalleled development ability of open source.
> > >
> > > Uh, what exactly is this "new milestone in scalability"?
> >
> > I like that phrase. v8.0 is undoubtedly not just faster but
> more scalable
>
> Just to be a pain, the only benchmarks I've seen (OSDL) indicates 8.0 is
> a touch slower than 7.4.
>
> It is, however, significantly more predictable (consistent) in it's
> performance -- which is far more important for most of us.
>

Interesting. Worrying and interesting. Could I ask you to clarify this in
significantly more detail, so we can all discuss this? I'm willing to listen
to the evidence - there need be no heated debate.

Are you saying that:
- 8.0 is slower than 7.4, for all workloads
- when you give 8.0 more CPUs, it is less or at least similarly scalable as
7.4.5?

Are you really sure a fully comparable test has taken place? Have you taken
into account the effect of tablespaces - or do you consider that to be a
"dressing-up" of something that was already possible?

Best Regards, Simon Riggs

> > Just to be a pain, the only benchmarks I've seen (OSDL) indicates 8.0 is
> > a touch slower than 7.4.
> >
> > It is, however, significantly more predictable (consistent) in it's
> > performance -- which is far more important for most of us.
> >
>
> Interesting. Worrying and interesting. Could I ask you to clarify this in
> significantly more detail, so we can all discuss this? I'm willing to listen
> to the evidence - there need be no heated debate.
>
> Are you saying that:
> - 8.0 is slower than 7.4, for all workloads
> - when you give 8.0 more CPUs, it is less or at least similarly scalable as
> 7.4.5?

I cannot answer these because I've not tested all workloads under
different configurations. For my workload on 2 to 4way machines, Pg on
8.0 configured similarly to 7.4 was a touch slower (5% or so). I had
read Mark Wong of OSDL has found similar results for a straight upgrade
-- but I don't believe they've done specific testing to confirm this. A
few other parameters had been changed (test duration being a big one).

Anyway, for me, instead of queries taking between 2ms and 150ms, 8.0 is
more consistent to be between 3ms and 5ms (numbers made up to
demonstrate consistency). But if you got 2ms 300 times for every 150ms
execution time, 7.4 was technically faster.

> Are you really sure a fully comparable test has taken place? Have you taken
> into account the effect of tablespaces - or do you consider that to be a
> "dressing-up" of something that was already possible?

If you do take advantage of these features (putting WAL on a separate
LUN, etc.) then you can gain that time back again.

Of course, there's also the bug-fix performance boosts (int4 to int8
joins) which will make a huge difference for some users.

On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 07:08:52PM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote:

> I cannot answer these because I've not tested all workloads under
> different configurations. For my workload on 2 to 4way machines, Pg on
> 8.0 configured similarly to 7.4 was a touch slower (5% or so).

One difference between 7.4 and 8.0 is that the latter has 4 bytes more
per-tuple overhead (the "field compression" done by Manfred Koizar on
7.3 was lost due to subtransactions).  This change alone can make an
important difference, and will affect everyone, in all situations.

--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"¿Qué importan los años?  Lo que realmente importa es comprobar que
a fin de cuentas la mejor edad de la vida es estar vivo"  (Mafalda)

Peter,

> Why is this the final draft if the release it still more than one month
> away?

Three reasons:
1) translations;
2) a couple of the companies I approached about quotes insisted on seeing a
semi-final version of the press release.   One of them has a major
departmental meeting on Friday so I picked tommorrow as a deadline.
3) without an arbitrary deadline, we'll keep tinkering forever.

> I like where this is going, but of course I have a couple of comments.

Great.  I was getting worried you were on vacation or something. ;-)

> > PARAGRAPH ONE:
> > My Version:
> > NY, NY: October XX, 2004 - The PostgreSQL Global Development group
>
> Why "NY, NY"?

Press releases require a location for the dateline (for example, PRWeb won't
accept one without it).    NY, NY is traditional for US-based releases which
don't have a specific location.   I'd be fine with Sydney, Australia,
Pittsburgh, Pennslyvania, Tokyo or whatever people want.

> There tends to be a lot of "drama" in the press release drafts.  Drama
> is about conflict and suspense, which we really don't want.  A term
> like "significantly" might be better.

Hmm ... "geometrically"?  "tremendously"?  "exceptionally"?   Seriously, the
windows port alone is going to double the size of our community (for better
or for worse); "significantly" doesn't seem strong enough.

> > PARAGRAPH TWO:
> > My version:
> > In addition to reaching a new milestone in scalability, PostgreSQL
>
> I concur with others that there is no milestone in scalability.

And I ask again for suggestions on alternative language.

>
> > Windows:
> > My Version, Same as Draft Seven:
> > Native Windows Support:  PostgreSQL now works natively with Windows
> > systems and does not need an emulation layer.  This provides
>
> ... *on* Windows *operating* systems ...
>
> > dramatically improved performance over previous versions, and offers
> > a compelling alternative to proprietary database software for
> > independent software vendors, corporate users, and individual Windows
> > developers.
>
> Again, there is no drama here.

Hmmm ... actually, I'm seeing some stuff in that paragraph which is redundant
with other paragraphs.   Let me try:

Native Windows Support:  the PostgreSQL server now runs natively on Windows
operating systems without Unix emulation software.  This  offers a compelling
alternative to proprietary database software for independent software vendors,
corporate users, and individual Windows developers.

... shorter because I don't think we really need to oversell the Windows port;
in fact, I'll bet that at least 1/4 of our press coverage won't mention any
features other than the Windows port.

> > Savepoints:  This SQL-standard feature allows specific parts of a
> > database transaction to be rolled back without aborting the entire
> > operation. This benefits business application developers who require
>
> ... entire transaction.

hmmm ... how about " ... to be rolled back without aborting."   I don't want
to use "transaction" twice in a sentence unless my back's to the wall.

> Somehow I feel that this wording is confusing; I wouldn't know what PITR
> really does.  How does it tie in with existing features and how does it
> respond to users' needs.  Obviously, PostgreSQL had some kind of data
> recovery before, but that makes it look like now it really has it or
> something.

Well, I had another version but Simon vetoed it.   Simon?

> It's not "an" Adaptive Replacement Cache, it's "the" Adaptive
> Replacement Cache algorithm.  How about this change:  "Disk and memory
> usage have been optimized through the use of the Adaptive Replacement
> Cache algorithm, the new background writer, and the new lazy vacuum
> feature."

OK.

> There is no capital P in pgpool.

Good to know.

> > With more than 18 years of development by hundreds of the world's
> > most generous and brilliant minds from the open source community,
>
> I think this really goes too far with the self-glorification.

We've used it before.  Suggestions?

> PostgreSQL is available under a BSD-style license, which imposes no
> restrictions on commercial or noncommercial redistribution and use.

well, gramatically it's:
PostgreSQL is available under a BSD-style license, which imposes restrictions
on neither commercial nor noncommercial redistribution and use.

I also question the need for "-style".    Last I checked, we were using *the*
BSD license.

--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


> This release includes many features previously only available in the most expensive
> proprietary database software, and is expected to dramatically increase the adoption
> of PostgreSQL by both developers and software vendors.

"developers and software vendors" - um, what about users? When I think of "developer",
I think of the "developers" mentioned in the next paragraph: e.g. pg hackers.

> In addition to reaching a new milestone in scalability, PostgreSQL 8.0 demonstrates the
> unparalleled development ability of open source. Red Hat, Fujitsu, Afilias, SRA of Japan,
> 2nd Quadrant, Command Prompt, and more than a dozen other companies as well as over
> 200 individual developers contributed to add more major features to 8.0 than have been
> seen in any previous version.

The second sentence introduces a large list before explaining what the real noun of the
sentence is ("companies") - perhaps "Many companies, including ..."

Simply "hundreds of developers" sounds better than "over 200 individual developers"

> Oh, and Peter, I need to list "SRA of Japan" because there is an SRA, Inc. in
> the US which is a different company.

Do they have distinct legal names?

> And I'm currently polling Hackers for more companies to avoid leaving anyone out.

Do we have a list to back up our "more than a dozen other" claim?

> Point in Time Recovery: Point in Time Recovery provides a full recovery
> model that allows data recovery from bare-metal to the point of failure or
> to a specific point in time, based around automatically archived
> transaction logs.

Lose the "bare-metal" phrase - it jumps out at the reader and sits there,
glaring at you, even if you know what it means.

> Adaptive Replacement Cache, the Background Writer, and Lazy Vacuum.

I dislike "lazy vacuum": 'lazy' has some very negative connotations, irregardless
of the technology it represents in this case. Call it an "advanced vacuuming system"

> Several stored procedure languages have been added or greatly expanded,
> including PL/Java, PL/PHP and PL/Perl

It might be nice to sneak in a mention that we already have a whole slew of
languages that have been available for a long time already.

> Of course, there are many more new features. =A0 For a full list, see our=
> Press Page <link>

Perhaps "for a full description of all the new items in version 8.0, see ..."

> With more than 18 years of development by hundreds of the world's
> most generous and brilliant minds from the open source community,

Laying it on a bit thick.

> To find out more about PostgreSQL or to download it, please visit:
>  http://www.postgresql.org/

Sure would be nice to have the new page up by then. Oops, wrong list! :)

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200409230702
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFBUq1ZvJuQZxSWSsgRAmBeAKC5cApbkvwDQyR2wYkIcKBb0N+J9wCfaeWN
4EDkubuHk6FiEVhrPXw1RbA=
=ZMQy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 23:21, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Peter,
> > PostgreSQL is available under a BSD-style license, which imposes no
> > restrictions on commercial or noncommercial redistribution and use.
>
> well, gramatically it's:
> PostgreSQL is available under a BSD-style license, which imposes restrictions
> on neither commercial nor noncommercial redistribution and use.
>

Is it? Thats a mouthful. And technically not true, since there is a
restriction, which is that you must keep the copyright notices in tact.
How about "which imposes no penalties for commercial or non-commercial
use."

> I also question the need for "-style".    Last I checked, we were using *the*
> BSD license.
>

Well, were not use *the* BSD license, since our version is not the most
current. However I do think that adding the "-style" will only confuse
people, so I am all for leaving it out since afaik we are using *a* BSD
license.

BTW - On the web page we call it a licence.


Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

> Is it? Thats a mouthful. And technically not true, since there is a
> restriction, which is that you must keep the copyright notices in
tact.
> How about "which imposes no penalties for commercial or non-commercial
> use."

I would get rid of the negation; it makes things seem more positive.

Like: "which provides royalty free distribution for com and non-com
use".


Merlin

Greg, Robert, Merlin,

> "developers and software vendors" - um, what about users? When I think of
> "developer", I think of the "developers" mentioned in the next paragraph:
> e.g. pg hackers.

Hmmm ... good point.   What's meant there is "application developers", but I
don't want to make the sentence any longer.   "users" it is.

> The second sentence introduces a large list before explaining what the real
> noun of the sentence is ("companies") - perhaps "Many companies, including
> ..."

Hmmm.   I can see that.

> Simply "hundreds of developers" sounds better than "over 200 individual
> developers"

How do other people feel about this?   I prefer the concrete number.

> > Oh, and Peter, I need to list "SRA of Japan" because there is an SRA,
> > Inc. in the US which is a different company.
>
> Do they have distinct legal names?

Hmmm ... Software Research Associates, Inc., is the Japanese
PostgreSQL-supporting company.    I can't find SRA International Inc's name
spelled out anywhere on their web site and they don't google on "Software
Research Associates"; so maybe we just spell it out.

> Do we have a list to back up our "more than a dozen other" claim?

Not that I've assembled, but do you doubt it?   Here's a sampling: Aglio
Database Solutions, TDMSoft, creatediv, Cybertec.at, dbExperts, Peer Direct.

> I dislike "lazy vacuum": 'lazy' has some very negative connotations,
> irregardless of the technology it represents in this case. Call it an
> "advanced vacuuming system"

Sorry, that's the name of the feature.

> It might be nice to sneak in a mention that we already have a whole slew of
> languages that have been available for a long time already.

I'd be happy to see you write something up for the extended version on the web
site.   The to-be-mailed version is pretty long already.

> Perhaps "for a full description of all the new items in version 8.0, see
> ..."

I can see that.

> BTW - On the web page we call it a licence.

British vs. American spelling.

> Like: "which provides royalty free distribution for com and non-com
> use".

I like this, a little tweaked:

PostgreSQL is distributed under a BSD license, which allows fee-free use and
distribution, for both commercial and non-commercial use.

--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:

> Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:10:05 -0700
> From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
> To: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Press Release, Final Draft?
>
> > BTW - On the web page we call it a licence.
>
> British vs. American spelling.

My understanding is that license is a verb, and licence is a noun.

I can license you and provide you a licence.


--
Evan Rempel                erempel@uvic.ca
Senior Programmer Analyst        250.721.7691
Computing Services
University of Victoria

Josh,

I can 'officially' tell you that the part of SRA that is supporting Bruce is known as SRA-America.

The address is:

One Penn Plaza, Suite 1910
New York, NY 10119

They currently have two websites (they're going to be updated soon):
sraapowergres.com
sraamerica.com

Their contact person is .... me :-)


cheers

Rob


Josh Berkus wrote:

Oh, and Peter, I need to list "SRA of Japan" because there is an SRA,
Inc. in the US which is a different company.     

Do they have distinct legal names?   

Hmmm ... Software Research Associates, Inc., is the Japanese 
PostgreSQL-supporting company.    I can't find SRA International Inc's name 
spelled out anywhere on their web site and they don't google on "Software 
Research Associates"; so maybe we just spell it out.    

Do we have a list to back up our "more than a dozen other" claim?   

On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 13:10, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Greg, Robert, Merlin,
> > I dislike "lazy vacuum": 'lazy' has some very negative connotations,
> > irregardless of the technology it represents in this case. Call it an
> > "advanced vacuuming system"
>
> Sorry, that's the name of the feature.
>

Unless I am confused, the two features that we have are really Vacuum
and Vacuum Full. "Lazy Vacuum" is just a nickname that people use to
help differentiate it from full vacuums, but it is not a real feature
name, which is one of the reasons you wont find it mentioned in the docs
anywhere.

Furthermore, what exactly is new about this feature in 8.0? We've had it
for several releases, the only thing that is different is how it
interacts with the background writer, but it is not a new feature, and
imho could be dropped from this paragraph all together.


> BTW - On the web page we call it a licence.
>
> British vs. American spelling.
>

Uh, I didn't need an explanation, I was pointing out the inconsistency.
Perhaps we ought to address it?


> > Like: "which provides royalty free distribution for com and non-com
> > use".
>
> I like this, a little tweaked:
>
> PostgreSQL is distributed under a BSD license, which allows fee-free use and
> distribution, for both commercial and non-commercial use.
>

fee-free is so foo-foo don't you think?

"PostgreSQL is distributed under a BSD license, allowing for both
commercial and non-commercial use and distribution without fee."

Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

Evan Rempel wrote:
> My understanding is that license is a verb, and licence is a noun.

That's the Canadian spelling.  Seriously.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

Robert,

> Unless I am confused, the two features that we have are really Vacuum
> and Vacuum Full. "Lazy Vacuum" is just a nickname that people use to
> help differentiate it from full vacuums, but it is not a real feature
> name, which is one of the reasons you wont find it mentioned in the docs
> anywhere.

Um, you prepare the Weekly News every week; how could you have missed this?
Jan added adjustible delay settings for VACUUM which breaks it up into
interruptable chunks, and interferes much less with concurrent I/O activity.
This is a new feature -- I think you're just confused because Jan submitted
it less than 2 months after 7.4 was released.

However, Jan did have a second name for this if both you and Robert don't like
Lazy Vacuum, which is Vacuum Delay.

--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 14:20, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Robert,
>
> > Unless I am confused, the two features that we have are really Vacuum
> > and Vacuum Full. "Lazy Vacuum" is just a nickname that people use to
> > help differentiate it from full vacuums, but it is not a real feature
> > name, which is one of the reasons you wont find it mentioned in the docs
> > anywhere.
>
> Um, you prepare the Weekly News every week; how could you have missed this?
> Jan added adjustible delay settings for VACUUM which breaks it up into
> interruptable chunks, and interferes much less with concurrent I/O activity.
> This is a new feature -- I think you're just confused because Jan submitted
> it less than 2 months after 7.4 was released.
>
> However, Jan did have a second name for this if both you and Robert don't like
> Lazy Vacuum, which is Vacuum Delay.
>

:-)

I missed it because I have always refereed to *that* as "vacuum delay",
which is also how it is referenced in the docs. Yes, that stuff is
certainly new, but the thing that I conceptualize as "lazy vacuum" (the
lock friendly vacuum) is not... hence my confusion with your wording.


Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

Hi,

I'm Tastuo Ishii from SRA, Inc. (yes, Software Research Associates,
Inc. in Japan).

From: Robert Bernier <robert.bernier5@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Press Release, Final Draft?
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:40:51 -0400
Message-ID: <41530AA3.3080708@sympatico.ca>

> Josh,
>
> I can 'officially' tell you that the part of SRA that is supporting
> Bruce is known as SRA-America.

Nope. The company that is supporting Bruce is SRA, Inc.(Software
Research Associates, Inc. in Japan), not SRA America (SRA America is a
child company of Software Research Associates, Inc., BTW.) If you feel
confusing us with the American company who has the name "SRA, Inc.", I
think it's better to spell us as "Software Research Associates, Inc.".
--
Tatsuo Ishii

> The address is:
>
> One Penn Plaza, Suite 1910
> New York, NY 10119
>
> They currently have two websites (they're going to be updated soon):
> sraapowergres.com
> sraamerica.com
>
> Their contact person is .... me :-)
>
>
> cheers
>
> Rob
>
>
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> >
> >>>Oh, and Peter, I need to list "SRA of Japan" because there is an SRA,
> >>>Inc. in the US which is a different company.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Do they have distinct legal names?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Hmmm ... Software Research Associates, Inc., is the Japanese
> >PostgreSQL-supporting company.    I can't find SRA International Inc's name
> >spelled out anywhere on their web site and they don't google on "Software
> >Research Associates"; so maybe we just spell it out.
> >
> >
> >>Do we have a list to back up our "more than a dozen other" claim?
> >>
> >>

Folks,

OK, I'll put together another full draft for Monday.  Thanks for everyone's
help!

--
--Josh

Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

Am Donnerstag, 23. September 2004 19:10 schrieb Josh Berkus:
> Not that I've assembled, but do you doubt it?   Here's a sampling: Aglio
> Database Solutions, TDMSoft, creatediv, Cybertec.at, dbExperts, Peer
> Direct.

Since there seems to be a pattern here (I got the T-shirts (thanks)), allow me
to clarify that the name of the company that Michael Meskes and I work for is
"credativ".

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


>> Do we have a list to back up our "more than a dozen other" claim?

> Not that I've assembled, but do you doubt it?   Here's a sampling:
> Aglio Database Solutions, TDMSoft, creatediv, Cybertec.at, dbExperts,
> Peer Direct.

It's not a matter of doubt. it's simply a matter of being ready when
someone outside asks us the question. So yes, if we are going to state
it, I feel we should assemble it.

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200409292123

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFBW2AkvJuQZxSWSsgRAilkAKDx4UM8Ad2osMJCmVg3PrOmpTbGFQCgndGT
ZgoR8r/lNudHh+dZex8FfEM=
=0UKx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 08:13:15PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Evan Rempel wrote:
> > My understanding is that license is a verb, and licence is a noun.
>
> That's the Canadian spelling.  Seriously.

And British, according to _Fowler_.  But in the US, "license" is
preferred for both.  Oddly, "practice" is also preferred for both,
but to provide advice is still to advise.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
This work was visionary and imaginative, and goes to show that visionary
and imaginative work need not end up well.
        --Dennis Ritchie